With his MOUTH?! I thought the normal version was heinous enough. Circumcision is a social fetish, but some people really get off on the procedure as well, which is really sadistic.

Emma_85 wrote:I know this does not have much to do with that article... but I wonder why people here often no longer have their boys circumcised? Is it because problems were common?

It might not be very common in Germany, but it is in the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and some other countries. As I recall, it never really caught on in Germany, though it may have had a brief popularity there. Its discontinuance or absence in other countries is not so much due to the risks as the absence of any remarkable benefits. The fact that it persists in my own country to such a degree (about 2/3 of newborn males) is a source of endless frustration to me.

Historically, routine infant circumcision was promoted during late Victorian times in the English-speaking parts of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the United Kingdom and was widely practiced during the first part of the 20th century in these countries. However, the practice declined sharply in the United Kingdom after the Second World War, and somewhat later in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It has been argued (e.g., Goldman 1997) that the practice did not spread to other European countries because others considered the arguments for it fallacious. In South Korea, circumcision was largely unknown before the establishment of the United States trusteeship in 1945. More than 90% of South Korean high school boys are now circumcised, but the average age of circumcision is 12 years, which makes South Korea a unique case [7]

From the late Victorian era, circumcision became more common in the higher classes in the United Kingdom. Queen Victoria had the notion that her family was descended from King David of Israel, and mandated that her sons, including the future King Edward VII be circumcised. King Edward continued the practice, and among the English royal family, the practice is still widespread: Prince Charles, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward were all circumcised. Reportedly, the late Diana, Princess of Wales rebelled against the royal tradition and refused to allow her sons, Prince William and Prince Harry, to be circumcised.

Routine infant circumcision has been abandoned in New Zealand and Britain, and is now much less common in Australia and in Canada (see table 1). The decline in circumcision in the United Kingdom followed the decision by the National Health Service (NHS) in 1948 not to cover the procedure following an influential article by Douglas Gardiner which claimed that circumcision resulted in the deaths of about 16 children under the age of five every year in the United Kingdom [8] (http://www.cirp.org/library/general/gairdner/). In most of the rest of the world, circumcision is done either as a religious or cultural practice.

It seems quite strange to me that Americans persist in this rather odd custom. Worse, many of them are convinced that there are health benefits to the process, and that infections of the uncircumcised glans is frequent. The Americans I met at university also seemed unaware that most Europeans preferred the turtleneck to the crew-cut.

Could be worse - according to the article:

Similarly, following the massacre of children at Beslan, enraged people turned on any men with a foreign accent, undressed them to see if they were circumcised and if they were, they were determined to be Muslim. One man was torn apart by the angry mob and police were barely able to rescue four others

As you can see in the discussion page at wiki, this is such a disputed issue that they had to freeze the article from editing, and it has been frozen for at least a year (due mostly to one very ornery circumcision proponent). It's quite a coincidence that this topic comes up today, because we just watched a video on circumcision in one of my classes today. For most of the video there were doctors explaining how its benefits, both medical and hygienic, were either nonexistent or negligible. Then to show the other side of the argument they interviewed several parents who claimed that it was cleaner and healthier. Makes me think they didn't get much out of the movie...

Anyways, I think most sensible people are willing to admit it is merely culture and tradition. However, if parents are willing to recognize it as such, I do not understand how they can condone cosmetic surgery on children.

Similarly, following the massacre of children at Beslan, enraged people turned on any men with a foreign accent, undressed them to see if they were circumcised and if they were, they were determined to be Muslim. One man was torn apart by the angry mob and police were barely able to rescue four others

I have read arguments from medical professionals on both sides of the debate, and I'm not sure that there will ever be agreement. There seem to be benefits and risks either way, so tradition tends to win.

All of my brothers are circumcised. I don't know yet whether I will circumcise my boys (should I have any). I imagine it would depend largely on my husband--whether he is and how he feels about it.

klewlis wrote:I have read arguments from medical professionals on both sides of the debate, and I'm not sure that there will ever be agreement. There seem to be benefits and risks either way, so tradition tends to win.

I assume you are referring to such benefits as reduced chance of preputial inflammation <- my favorite. There are also some studies that indicate there may be a minute decrease in the chances of penile cancer and UTIs, but the risks of infection during the procedure itself are much higher than the risks of serious infection in the first place. I've seen studies go both ways on which is safer against STDs.

On the other hand, even if such benefits exist, which I do not believe they do, circumcision sets a double standard. Breast and cervical cancer are much higher risk than any afflictions of the penis, much less the foreskin itself, but we certainly would not remove those organs from infants.

All of my brothers are circumcised. I don't know yet whether I will circumcise my boys (should I have any). I imagine it would depend largely on my husband--whether he is and how he feels about it.

I hope you base the decision on more than your husband's sense of aesthetics. Parents tend to care more about their own notions than their own infant's feelings. Un-circumcision lets the boy decide, circumcision is irreversible and if he decides he doesn't like it he is screwed... and for what? The fact that most doctors still don't use anesthetic for this should also be a factor to consider, and I wish that people who were considering this procedure were made to watch some sort of educational video, including a recording of an actual procedure.

It used to be practiced a lot in the UK after the war and of course all the Muslims friends I have are circumcised, some others too.
I'm not a man so not sure what they prefer, but I know I prefer circumcised men .

klewlis wrote:I have read arguments from medical professionals on both sides of the debate, and I'm not sure that there will ever be agreement. There seem to be benefits and risks either way, so tradition tends to win.

benissimus wrote:On the other hand, even if such benefits exist, which I do not believe they do, circumcision sets a double standard. Breast and cervical cancer are much higher risk than any afflictions of the penis, much less the foreskin itself, but we certainly would not remove those organs from infants.

That's because those organs are essential. Losing that extra little flap of skin is not going to later inhibit the boy in any way.

I hope you base the decision on more than your husband's sense of aesthetics. Parents tend to care more about their own notions than their own infant's feelings. Un-circumcision lets the boy decide, circumcision is irreversible and if he decides he doesn't like it he is screwed... and for what?

screwed? as in, his life will be misery, or what? He won't be able to get his ideal job? He won't be able to marry who he wants or accomplish what he wants or have a happy life? Aren't you overreacting? how is he "screwed"? We aren't removing a limb. :)

The fact that most doctors still don't use anesthetic for this should also be a factor to consider, and I wish that people who were considering this procedure were made to watch some sort of educational video, including a recording of an actual procedure.

My mother was present for the procedure of my brothers and said it wasn't bad at all--the reason they do it so early is because the younger you are, the less painful it is.

Deses wrote:Does female circumcision have some health benefits? Just a thought.

None that I know of. Female circumcision in third-world countries is about male domination and control of the girls. It has nothing to do with their physical health and in almost all cases is severely detrimental to the girls, who are often left unable to urinate, have sex, or menstruate without pain. Many girls also die from the bleeding or infections that are caused.

benissimus wrote:On the other hand, even if such benefits exist, which I do not believe they do, circumcision sets a double standard. Breast and cervical cancer are much higher risk than any afflictions of the penis, much less the foreskin itself, but we certainly would not remove those organs from infants.

That's because those organs are essential. Losing that extra little flap of skin is not going to later inhibit the boy in any way.

That extra little flap of skin has the highest concentration of erogenous nerves found anywhere in the male body. Recent research has even shown that the foreskin has certain sensory nerves previously thought to only exist in the fingertips, where the sense of touch is very important. There also exists in the foreskin a recently discovered structure called the ridged band which has been shown to trigger important glandular activity during intercourse. As for inhibiting the boy, there are many complaints of circumcision inhibiting sexual pleasure, both in men and their partners. In the William Stowell case for example (whom I have had the pleasure to meet), who won a decent settlement after a long legal battle, which was won on the accounts that it inhibited his sex life and was done without his permission. If you didn't already know, circumcision was originally adopted in England and its territories as a practice to desensitize the penis to deter boys from masturbation and frivolous sex. Perhaps Germany was not as uptight in the Victorian period and that is why it did not catch on well there? The excuses throughout the decades have merely evolved to be more in line with each era's values, and to re-justify it after its original logic evaporated.

The rate of infections and complications during the surgery is estimated to be between 2-10%, which when applied to the enormous population of circumcised men is an astounding number. Botches, castrations, and deaths (which are included in that figure) affect far too many men every year. Of course in less advanced cultures the incidence of complications and death is even higher. The story of David Reimer, who recently committed suicide after being raised as a girl after a botched circumcision, is an extreme example. Much information on these topics and links to other articles here. There is no reason when a boy's penis is perfectly normal to risk disfigurement or death, though from a culture-free standpoint even a successful circumcision is disfigurement.

My comparison between males and females was not great, since there is no organ in the female body that is entirely analogous to the male prepuce (strictly biologically the clitoral hood, but its functions in sex are very different). The point that I was trying to make, however, is that we would certainly not remove female organs (e.g. the breasts, cervix) at birth even if we could (and I do believe the breasts can be removed, or at least reduced). I believe that in modern times the female body has come to be held as sacred, at least in Western culture, whereas that same privelege is not accorded any longer to the male body. Let us not forget that no other part of the body, male or female, is excised or amputated prophylactically. Instead, and as indicated by responses as "I want my son to look like me", this is probably just an incredibly widespread case of a psychological desire to repeat the trauma.

I hope you base the decision on more than your husband's sense of aesthetics. Parents tend to care more about their own notions than their own infant's feelings. Un-circumcision lets the boy decide, circumcision is irreversible and if he decides he doesn't like it he is screwed... and for what?

screwed? as in, his life will be misery, or what? He won't be able to get his ideal job? He won't be able to marry who he wants or accomplish what he wants or have a happy life? Aren't you overreacting? how is he "screwed"? We aren't removing a limb.

"screwed", meaning faced with a problem that cannot be resolved or put into a bad situation; e.g. "I have an exam in 30 minutes and I don't know any of the material... I'm screwed!" or "If I can't reach her on her cell phone I might be screwed". Though there are some people who are miserable, and also some whose lives were literally ruined due to botches.

But I think you missed my main point in there. Why not just let the boy decide? Why must a parent make such an irrevocable decision so early, when it could just as easily be done later in life. Chances are, that given the decision, he would keep his foreskin: is that such a bad decision? If he doesn't want it, then he can get a circumcision by his own will. It seems obvious to me which decision on the parent's part is more certain to satisfy.

As an aside, I would like to point out that in the United States a law was passed in the last decade making any form of unconsented modification on female genitals a felony. There is also a law stating that equal protection under the law must be given to both males and females. Apparently, this is not being enforced very strongly.

the reason they do it so early is because the younger you are, the less painful it is.

I would like to know where you learned this, because it is completely fallacious. There are countless studies which show that the procedure is extremely painful and has lasting effects in children. In fact, it is probably more painful in infants and certainly more influential in infants, for reasons I will explain. Anyone who believes that infants cannot feel pain as much as children or adults needs to read this article. They actually used to do surgery, including heart surgery, on unanesthetized infants, as recently as the 1980's. They thought rather arbitrarily that the crying was a reflex. It is shocking to know that the rumor that infants have an undeveloped central nervous system at birth still prevails among some doctors.

This study found that circumcised infants had a lessened response to pain during vaccination, which seems to indicate that they become accustomed to pain at an early age (which also shows that there is pain to the procedure). Circumcised babies often refuse to feed for some time after the procedure. Psychological and emotional effects such as castration fears and damage due to trauma as is common in childhood are also very likely, and there are studies on those too, which you can find collected at www.cirp.org . Perhaps the biggest indication of pain is that infants undergoing the procedure may often go into shock, and show signs months afterwards of post-traumatic stress disorder. If anyone finds these facts hard to believe, I encourage you to read up on them, and perhaps question whether you may be having trouble facing the evidence that this is being done to so many perfectly healthy babies.

To explain why the procedure is actually more painful in infants than in adults requires some knowledge of neonatal anatomy and of the procedure(s) for circumcision. In the fetus, the penis is actually covered entirely by skin, which is attached firmly just as the skin is to all other parts of the body. When the baby is born, the skin covering the glans, which we refer to as the foreskin, has partly differentiated from the glans, but it is still inseparable. A clear line cannot be drawn between foreskin and glans at this point, because they are seamlessly connected, and they may remain so until puberty.. The doctor's solution to this is to drive metal wedges between the two, ripping them apart. This often results in small chunks of the glans coming off on the foreskin, and small chunks of the foreskin coming off on the glans, known as adhesions (they usually fall off within a few weeks of circumcision). This also accounts for the irregular textures of the circumcised glans; which very frequently results in disfiguring pits, grooves, and marks that many people may not know are actually abnormal. This is of course extremely painful and rarely done with anesthetic. But only then can the procedure commence, also without anesthetic usually. This is yet another reason why I recommend holding off on the procedure until later in life, when the tissues have matured. To prevent unlikely harm from happening to their children, parents are ensuring that it does.

There are many variations for the procedure and tools used in circumcision, you can see the most common ones here, including some step-by-step photographs of the operation. When it is performed with anesthetic, which is rare, it is usually only done with topical anesthetic. Topical anesthetic is practically useless past the epidermis (the foreskin is more than epidermis as many people might believe), but strong anesthetic can have adverse effects on baby's brains - yet more reason to delay the procedure.

I apologize for writing so much, but there are many important facets of this issue and I did not want to "circumcise" any vital parts of my argument. Considering the wealth of information against circumcision, some of which I have tried to explain in this post, and the relatively small amount of hard evidence in favor of circumcision, it is baffling that medical organizations tend to take positions that are only neutral, rather than hostile to circumcision.

Last edited by benissimus on Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:05 pm, edited 12 times in total.

klewlis wrote:I have read arguments from medical professionals on both sides of the debate, and I'm not sure that there will ever be agreement. There seem to be benefits and risks either way, so tradition tends to win.

Does female circumcision have some health benefits? Just a thought.

There is no incentive to research it, though I'm sure they could find some benefits if they wanted to. The arguments for male circumcision are similar to "we can prevent cavities by removing your teeth" or "we can prevent testicular cancer by removing them (and perhaps replacing them with bouncy balls)". So, if there is some infection or problem that afflicts the female sex organs, female circumcision might be a deterrent or even cure. Female circumcision is approached from the focus that we should try to find things wrong with it, whereas male circumcision already exists and ways to keep it around are sought after (this may remind you of another issue where this approach is used...). I agree with klewlis that the two are drastically different, but I say that they are very similar at heart in that they are both mainly done out of ignorance and the result is mutilation.

In some African tribes, they believe that if the clitoris is not removed in childhood, it will continue to grow without end until the woman has to drag it around like an oversized phallus! This brings up the question of whether we should try discourage them from doing the practice, but by doing so interfere with their culture. On the other hand, the United States is currently funding "circumcision villages" (male) in Africa, under the unsupported claims that it will reduce the spread of HIV.

It has nothing to do with their physical health and in almost all cases is severely detrimental to the girls, who are often left unable to urinate, have sex, or menstruate without pain. Many girls also die from the bleeding or infections that are caused.

I am very much against female genital mutilation, and if only one could be utterly eradicated from the world, I would reluctantly choose the female version. The fact that it has nothing to do with physical health does nothing to separate it from male circumcision though.

Last edited by benissimus on Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm not one for inappropriate levity, but this page contains some interesting theological discussion:

Orthodox Christian belief has it that Jesus ascended bodily into Heaven forty days after his resurrection from the dead. This would mean that Jesus' foreskin (removed at his circumcision) would be one of the few physical remainders of Jesus left behind on Earth. The modern, peri'ah style of circumcision did not become the standard mode until around the time of the revolt led by Simon bar Kokhba in AD 132–135, whereas the style of circumcision practised by Jews in Judea prior to bar Kokhba removed only the 'tip' of the foreskin, not all of it.

Calcata is worthy of special mention, as the reliquary containing the Holy Foreskin was paraded through the streets of this Italian village as recently as 1983 on the Feast of the Circumcision (marked by the Catholic church around the world on January 1 each year). The practice ended, however, when thieves stole the jewel-encrusted case, contents and all. Following this theft, it is unclear whether any of the purported Holy Prepuces still exist.

During the late 17th century, Catholic scholar and theologian Leo Allatius in De Praeputio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Diatriba ("Discussion concerning the Prepuce of our Lord Jesus Christ") speculated that the Holy Foreskin may have ascended into Heaven at the same time as Jesus himself and might have become the rings of Saturn, then only recently observed by telescope.

Back to more relevant discussion. I can assure you, klewlis, that the foreskin is not merely a flap of skin. It does contain nerves and a blood supply and is as much a part of me as my upper lip, and feels about as much sensation. I would not want it removed.

klewlis wrote:None that I know of. Female circumcision in third-world countries is about male domination and control of the girls. It has nothing to do with their physical health and in almost all cases is severely detrimental to the girls, who are often left unable to urinate, have sex, or menstruate without pain. Many girls also die from the bleeding or infections that are caused.

I really don't think we can rightfully compare the two.

I'm not so sure the reasons for male circumcision aren't similar. We men are not nearly as dominant as some people think we are. The act of circumcision speaks for itself. We don't maim little girls here, only little boys. Think about it.

Male circumcision is carried out with (presumably) clean instruments and the babies are too small to remember or complain about the pain. If female circumcisions were carried out here (God forbid it), then I expect there would likewise be fewer complications. But that would not make it acceptible.

The most significant difference between female and male circumcision is that the former is unheard-of here but the latter is commonplace.

Schließlich, as german physicists might say, my bishop has his floppy sort of tetrahedral hat intact and I have had no problems whatsoever, and the girls seem to love it e-. I had however of complaints a few had I been circumcised. Thank HaShem this did not happen.

I was discussing female circumcision with a girl who is very dear to me and I thought at that time that I as a male would never think of doing such a thing to her or any other female in order to demonstrate any apparent power or control. But then again I am not a muslim! haha. I know wait there my girl is boring me I'd like to unveil her over there damn I wish I were allowed...what's that Allah I can have more than 1 wife? Jurassic Fuq! Apart from the unnecessary risks of health I am sure that men would fury themselves at their episcopal element of pleasure being erepted. Just imagine they would all go crazy. Do I really have to make another graph.

klewlis wrote:Well, boys, I see that emotion runs deep on this topic. And since I am a girl I think I've reached the end of my (underqualified) involvement in this discussion. ;)

Does that mean you can't be convinced? :(

Dearest Steven, if you'll refer to my first post in this thread you'll see that I have never actually been convinced either way. If anyone is to convince me in one direction or the other, it will have to be my (yet unnamed) husband, with whom I will discuss the issue fully when the time comes. ;)

It-s very interesting and informative what one reads here in all the posts. What can I say, except to thank God that in my corner of this world circumcision is not practiced and I escaped that savage torture? I could never imagine that it is so widespread in USA. I wonder why they do not use total anaesthesia to prevent at least that horrible pain!

Ohh....please do......I laughed so hard at the last one I almost wet myself!

As far as circumcion goes......I live in America = I am circumcised.

It's never bugged me....maybe I don't know what I'm missing, but much more "sensitivity" would be hard to imagine. I don't have children of my own, nor will I at this point, barring Divine intervention, but if I did, I probably would have them circumcised. I know the few kids that weren't in my gym class heard no end of "aardvark" jokes!!

klewlis wrote:Well, boys, I see that emotion runs deep on this topic. And since I am a girl I think I've reached the end of my (underqualified) involvement in this discussion.

Does that mean you can't be convinced?

Dearest Steven, if you'll refer to my first post in this thread you'll see that I have never actually been convinced either way. If anyone is to convince me in one direction or the other, it will have to be my (yet unnamed) husband, with whom I will discuss the issue fully when the time comes.

Dearest Holly, I know that I have probably infringed on the very sensitive area of telling a (future) parent how to raise a child, but this is an issue of human rights. My point is that the hospital should not even give this choice to the parent, but since they do, a righteous parent must turn it down. The fact that your (future) mate might persuade you into cirumcising a son shows to me that the evidence which I posted was not able to make you completely averse to circumcision. This is extremely upsetting to me, but I will not press the argument further if you are unwilling.

kopio wrote:I don't have children of my own, nor will I at this point, barring Divine intervention, but if I did, I probably would have them circumcised.

Why? Why do so few responses realize that cosmetic surgery on infants is wrong? It feels as though you have not even read my previous post. I beg of you, at least show some thoughtfulness; this is not a haircut for God's sake!

I know the few kids that weren't in my gym class heard no end of "aardvark" jokes!!

I don't know anyone from my generation who ever had to get naked in gym class, so this argument is no longer relevant (as if it ever was). Parents preach about how they want their kids to be different and independent - meanwhile they very physically homogenize them. I still don't get the aardvark thing... but I'd take that over a scarred phallus anyday .

As far as circumcion goes......I live in America = I am circumcised.

It's never bugged me....maybe I don't know what I'm missing, but much more "sensitivity" would be hard to imagine.

You don't find it at least interesting that most men on the planet have something that you are missing? Surely if you wanted to you could stir up some feelings of violation or anger at that fact, but I doubt it will do any good now. What I have seen from many circumcised friends I have talked to is that they go out of their way to avoid the subject or make jokes about it (which has happened several times in this very thread and even in your post). This avoidance of talking about the issue seriously is no doubt strongly tied to the obliviousness with which most parents go into having their sons circumcised. I also believe that parents are loathe to discuss the possible effects of circumcision on their child, because at some level they (especially the father) know that if they determine it is not in the child's best interest, then they must acknowledge that it was also not in the father's best interest when it was done to him. They are quick to judge that the circumcised father is fine, so there must be nothing wrong with the procedure, when in fact they have no frame of reference; which is why if klewlis's hypothetical husband is circumcised I would not trust him for a heartbeat to make a clear-headed decision about this. Reconsideration can indirectly be painful, but it is better than perpetuating a harmful tradition.

I know what I am saying sounds very radical to many people, but this is only because this has penetrated our society so deeply. My acuity in other subjects is hopefully enough to prove that I am at least sane, and perhaps even rational.

I should think such a paries of points necessary if some one were considering deforming one's child without any approval thence. That's to say, I would have wished very much to be consulted by my mother prior to any episcopal/iudaeorung caesio which involve my own bishôp.

kopio wrote:I don't have children of my own, nor will I at this point, barring Divine intervention, but if I did, I probably would have them circumcised.

Why? Why do so few responses realize that cosmetic surgery on infants is wrong? It feels as though you have not even read my previous post. I beg of you, at least show some thoughtfulness; this is not a haircut for God's sake!

Not to completely try and frustrate you....I am speaking above very hypothetically, it has quite honestly never been something I have seriously considered, because...as I said, barring divine intervention, I will never have children of my own. ALSO, I did say probably, if I WERE having a son, I would certainly sit down and really consider the options.

Benissimus wrote:

kopio wrote:I know the few kids that weren't in my gym class heard no end of "aardvark" jokes!!

I don't know anyone from my generation who ever had to get in gym class, so this argument is no longer relevant (as if it ever was). Parents preach about how they want their kids to be different and independent - meanwhile they very physically homogenize them. I still don't get the aardvark thing... but I'd take that over a scarred phallus anyday .

Ouch!! This is one of those things that kind of slip in that remind me that I'm getting older....thanks Benissimus!

benissimus wrote:

kopio wrote:As far as circumcion goes......I live in America = I am circumcised.

It's never bugged me....maybe I don't know what I'm missing, but much more "sensitivity" would be hard to imagine.

You don't find it at least interesting that most men on the planet have something that you are missing? Surely if you wanted to you could stir up some feelings of violation or anger at that fact, but I doubt it will do any good now. What I have seen from many circumcised friends I have talked to is that they go out of their way to avoid the subject or make jokes about it (which has happened several times in this very thread and even in your post). This avoidance of talking about the issue seriously is no doubt strongly tied to the obliviousness with which most parents go into having their sons circumcised. I also believe that parents are loathe to discuss the possible effects of circumcision on their child, because at some level they (especially the father) know that if they determine it is not in the child's best interest, then they must acknowledge that it was also not in the father's best interest when it was done to him. They are quick to judge that the circumcised father is fine, so there must be nothing wrong with the procedure, when in fact they have no frame of reference; which is why if klewlis's hypothetical husband is circumcised I would not trust him for a heartbeat to make a clear-headed decision about this. Reconsideration can indirectly be painful, but it is better than perpetuating a harmful tradition.

I know what I am saying sounds very radical to many people, but this is only because this has penetrated our society so deeply. My acuity in other subjects is hopefully enough to prove that I am at least sane, and perhaps even rational.

I guess I would honestly consider if I were in the position where someone else's phalus was at stake.....what I'm wondering is, why are you so worked up about this?? To me this isn't really that big of a issue. Were you deprived of your phalus and have been on a crusade to make sure that others aren't deprived of theirs?? Seriously, I'm not trying to be a wise guy. Why is it that you feel so strongly about this. I can see getting worked up about landmines in third world countries, or child prostitution, or many other things.....why this? Your general tone and demenor remind me of many pro-lifers and their strong feelings tied to their "cause". I am in no way trying to demean you or insult you, but I really am honestly curious. Please enlighten me. BTW....my best friend has said (years ago) that if he ever has a boy (which is much more likely than for me) that he would NOT have the procedure done.